Angela Merkel: A Suicidal Bully

Not for the first time the government of Germany is acting as if it owned Europe. On two occasions in the 20th century it sought to occupy most of Europe; this time, with almost equal arrogance, it is trying to bully the rest of Europe into not resisting the ongoing Muslim occupation. The consequences of its actions today, if not checked, are likely to be as tragic as those of its predecessors had been in 1914 and 1939.

For reasons that have never been rationally explained, German Chancellor Angela Merkel continues to pursue a two-track policy:

At the same time she wants to redistribute migrants arriving in Germany throughout the EU through a system of Brussels-imposed compulsory quotas on all 28 member-countries (“I am fighting for this approach”), while admitting that there is no “Plan B”: she is not prepared even to consider any alternatives, such as cutting immigrant inflows.

Angela Merkel effectively wants to present the rest of Europe with two faits accomplis: that Germany will accept unlimited numbers of migrants, and that Germany will use her overwhelming influence in Brussels to force the rest of Europe to share the resulting cost and burden of improving “Germany’s reputation”—all in the name of maintaining “European unity.” Her calls for a “joint European solution” are nothing but demands for the rest of Europe to be obedient, say Jawohl! and facilitate the creation of Sharia-based no-go areas in Krakow, Bratislava and Budapest.

Merkel’s stated objective, “to keep Europe together and to show humanity,” is calamitous in principle and unattainable in practice. Translated into plain English,

“keeping Europe together” means imposing her will on the rest of the EU through the compulsory quota mechanisms—favored by the EU executive’s unelected president Jean-Claude Juncker—which violate democratic principles and abrogate national sovereignty;

The Chancellor’s twin goal—encouraging a new massive migrant wave by keeping German borders open, and then passing some of the newcomers on to the rest of the EU—is encountering resistance. For the first time, Austria (hitherto Merkel’s reliable ally within the EU) is showing deifiance by unilaterally imposing checks on the inflow. On March 2 Slovak prime minister Robert Fico announced that Slovakia will not participate in the relocation of refugees on its territory on the basis of the EU compulsory “relocation quota” system. Slovakia is one of the Visegrad Group (V4 group) states, along with Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which oppose any quotas imposed from Brussels.

Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban is the resister-in-chief. Last week he announced that the country would hold a referendum on whether to accept the mandatory EU relocation quotas. Orban rejects Merkel’s claim that actual numbers of relocated migrants would be small as irrelevant. He treats the issue as one of principle: if Budapest accepts any migrants under a plan not subjected to ratification by the national assembly, a dangerous precedent will have been created for the future—at a time when “nobody has asked the peoples of Europe whether they support, accept, or reject the mandatory migrant quotas.”

The referendum is legal under the Hungarian constitution and legitimate as a democratic exercise on a key issue affecting national security. Merkel nevertheless rejected it out of hand, saying it threatened European solidarity. Orban responded on February 28 by declaring, in a nationally televised address, that EU leaders have no will to seriously tackle the migration crisis:

Europe’s future is endangered primarily not by those who want to come here but by those political, economic and intellectual leaders who are trying to transform Europe in opposition to the European people . . . Migration can be stopped . . . Europe has the technological, strategic and economic might to defend itself. It is enough of a problem that Brussels cannot organise Europe’s defence, but the bigger trouble is that it lacks the will to do so.

Orban cited Angela Merkel’s welcoming refugee policy (Wilkommenspolitik) as a key factor contributing to the crisis. He described the EU’s response to it as “absurd,” and compared EU leaders to the captain of a ship on a collision course who is busy “designating the non-smoking lifeboats instead of trying to avoid the collision.” He further said that migrants did not want to integrate, and that it was not possible to replace the ageing European workforce with young Muslim masses because “parallel societies threaten the security and identity of Europe”:

Brussels must be stopped . . . We can’t allow them to force us . . . to import the bitter fruits of their mistaken immigration policies. We don’t want to and won’t import crime, terrorism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism into Hungary. There will be no lawless districts in Hungarian cities. There will be no riots, no refugee camps set on fire, and no gangs will hunt for our wives and daughters.

Such outspokenly non-PC discourse offers a breath of fresh air to many Europeans who are growing tired of their leaders’ irrational and ultimately suicidal strategies. The government of Germany under Merkel is the chief culprit, but the political, media, and academic elites all over Europe are guilty of demonizing anyone ready to voice views similar to Orban’s. They have created an atmosphere of fear which is far worse than that prevailing east of the Iron Curtain in the final years of “real socialism.”

Merkel’s motives for pursuing a demonstrably insane course remain mysterious; but whether she is delusional, or ridden by an excessively internalized post-1945 German sense of guilt, is immaterial. She and the unelected mandarins in Brussels are trying to terrorize hundreds of millions of Europeans into quietly accepting their demographic and cultural demise. A glimpse into this nightmarish future is provided by the migrant “jungle” in Calais, once a well-ordered, safe, if somewhat dull Channel port city.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s plan is monstrous, the means of its implementation grotesque, the likely results disastrous. Its execution must be stopped by all legal, political, and other means possible if Europe is to survive. The crimes of Merkel and her fellow-conspirators in the grand anti-European joint criminal enterprize are infinitely worse than those of which the rulers of the Thirteen Colonies in 1776, of France in 1789, or Russia in 1917, were guilty. It is to be hoped that their just deserts will be of a similar order of magnitude.